CGS - A customer-facing business?

[Nick 329]

how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40?

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection').

Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw.

In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius?

According to the CGS population report, they've slabbed 62 of them.

[Peter 615]

Apart from a muppet why slab anything under say £500.If you don't know what you are buying DON'T BUY IT.

[Paulus 1,975]

how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40?

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection').

Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw.

In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius?

According to the CGS population report, they've slabbed 62 of them.

So I see! How on earth does that work then?? Bill???

[Colin G. 147]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Colin G.

[Rob 3,152]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

Yeh, but it's going some when the contents of a slab are worth less than the few pence value of said slab. I would suggest that 61 of the 62 slabbed 1967 pennies are samples and that Bill's coin is the only one in a collection.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Rob

[Coinery 1,153]

how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40?

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection').

Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw.

In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius?

According to the CGS population report, they've slabbed 62 of them.

A holiday for TWO in Mauritius, then!

[Paulus 1,975]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

Yeh, but it's going some when the contents of a slab are worth less than the few pence value of said slab. I would suggest that 61 or the 62 slabbed 1967 pennies are samples and that Bill's coin is the only one in a collection.

Indeed Rob, which makes me further wonder how many of the rather meagre 25,000 that CGS have slabbed are

• samples
  
• still in their slabs
  
• slabbed for London Coins
  

I still have an open mind though!

[Coinery 1,153]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

But how many Churchill Crowns, E2 & G6 farthings, to name but a few, could be added to the peanuts list?

With Bill's couple of thousand coins, and the E2 pre and post decimal coinage, plus my 10 slabs and VS's mint-flavoured NEF '35 Crown...what was that population report again?

Anyway, where's MY '67 penny, then?

[Paulus 1,975]

I am going to try and arrange to meet with them

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Bill, I have presented the above example of a "Rocking Horse Crown" that clearly looks to be overgraded by numerous points and has obviously developed a worrisome verdigris spot WITHIN the slab.

So that is two severe strikes in my book against them.

Another issue I do not think worked out to the satisfaction of many of us is the seemingly too intimate relationship with London Coins - I can not see how this is an issue that they sell coins at commission at auction that have been graded at their site, and that this is an ethical compromise at best.

I agree with many of your other points, though have no experience submitting coins through them so can not speak as to Customer Relations, charges, rapidity of service, etc.

Hello Vicky,

I missed this post when reviewing yesterday - my apologies.

Could you tell me the reference number on the slab for the coin please?

I recently heard of a situation where a person removed a coin from a CGS capsule and contacted them because the coin had been incorrectly attributed to a variety. They arranged to send the coin and broken slab back to CGS who refunded postage, corrected the attribution (it was a variety dealing with something specific to the edge of the coin) and made a contribution to the time spent by the person returning the coin. Yet, they could have justifiably refused to do anything because the coin had been removed from the slab.

If anyone who has a CGS graded coin in CGS capsule has a problem with the coin their guarantee kicks in. I believe the main US Graders offer a similar guarantee. Contact them first about the problem and arrange to send the coin to them (so they can expect it). Send by insured signed for postage with a note explaining your concerns. In a best case they will 100% agree with you and refund either the value or where you paid more (and can show you did) than the valuation, they will refund you that cost. In a median case they will work with you to arrive at an agreement which may include replacing the coin with a comparable one to that you thought you had. In a worst case you come to a compromise and will probably be unhappy (which is not in any coin graders interest).

What many people do not realise is that CGS is actually owned by a number of companies and individuals, and yes one of the shareholders is London Coins. When the service was conceived for the UK it was launched with the opportunity for all main UK coin auction houses and dealers to invest in the service. It does share the same Managing Director (Steve Lockett) of London Coins and it shares office space with London Coins.

In an ideal world it would be completely independent of any one dealer (which was attempted by the shared ownership). Had it achieved the volume of coins per week (I believe at least 1,000) it has set out to process it could well now be in its own premises with its own full time staff. Because it is not doing anywhere near that volume (some times none a week) the business would not survive without the support of London Coins. I accept the situation of the London Coins connection and I sincerely hope that the business grows while maintaining its excellent product delivery and in time may physically remove itself from the direct London Coins reliance and connection. Because resources are sometimes shared by CGS with London Coins delays can be experienced in getting coins through their process or in communications because the needs of London Coins (preparing for Auctions or dealing with post auction deliveries) sometimes take priority.

I look forward to the time CGS does have its own premises and staff.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Bill, I have presented the above example of a "Rocking Horse Crown" that clearly looks to be overgraded by numerous points and has obviously developed a worrisome verdigris spot WITHIN the slab.

So that is two severe strikes in my book against them.

Another issue I do not think worked out to the satisfaction of many of us is the seemingly too intimate relationship with London Coins - I can not see how this is an issue that they sell coins at commission at auction that have been graded at their site, and that this is an ethical compromise at best.

I agree with many of your other points, though have no experience submitting coins through them so can not speak as to Customer Relations, charges, rapidity of service, etc.

I think this is a major issue. If people are relying on their grading then they need to be independent and seen to be independent of both buyers and sellers.

As the Americans might say ... it is Ethics 101.

I have my high grade coins slabbed by CGS mainly for protection and ease of viewing. I do find their grading generally strict but I think that's probably a good thing. I too find their intimate relationship with London Coins of some concern. As stated on their website, London Coins (Holdings) Group Ltd owns 51% of CGS. I don't have a real problem with that or the fact that London Coins auctions CGS coins on behalf of clients. However, I just think that the selling of CGS slabs on the London coins website (and the auctioning of these slabs when they fail to sell) raise questions of on the independency of CGS.

The problem here is not whether CGS act ethically or not - and I have no doubt that they are entirely ethical and above board. It is the perception that matters. While there is a link to a major vendor - in this case London Coins - there will always be a suspicion that they grade higher to get better prices and therefore higher commissions or profits.

And it only takes a couple of unhappy customers to start that ball rolling.

I have an open mind at the moment, and waiting on my first consignment to be graded and slabbed (hopefully) and returned, a trial run if you will. One of the questions in my 'open mind' at the moment is how on earth there are so many coins worth less than, say £25, that have been slabbed by CGS when it costs a minimum of £11.99 plus 2-way postage (or petrol!) for each coin? Lots of optimists or some preferential discounts?? Any thoughts? I am not saying £11.99 isn't good value, but how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40?

Even Bill says he pays the going rate .. I spoke with Andrew of AJW Coins and he says he pays the going rate too, but was offered "25 for the price of 20" at some point.

It seems that something I try and convey to companies that I advise is being highlighted here. One unhappy customer will lose you ten new customers and ten happy customers may bring you one new customers. My first submission to CGS was 39 coins (all in 'other' slabs) and even though I was disappointed with the result I have submitted a further 2,100 coins for grading by them. To keep submitting coins it is fair to surmise 'I am a happy customer'. Can someone be described as a customer who has not submitted coins (and this is not a 'dig' - poor customer service can disenchant anyone from becoming a customer)?

Elsewhere there are comments about 62 1967 pennies having been graded. What was not noted is a further 8 have been rejected. I had a quick look at the website and at least seven collectors have 1967 pennies registered in their collection. What was interesting to me is the highest grade attributed to any of these pennies is UNC88. I suspect that 1967 pennies were sent to CGS in the hope that they would grade higher. (I submitted a 1968 Irish Penny to CGS after going through a hundred or more because it was as near FDC as I could find - it graded at UNC90 but is still only worth £18.00 - but I am happy with that result because if it remains the finest known someone somewhere will offer me a premium for it should I decide to sell.)

I have no idea if CGS 'graded a number of coins' to give away. They have graded (and accepted) 2,227 UK pennies of all kinds and rejected a further 342 (as at this morning). Some of the pennies graded have sold for in excess of £20,000 (yet they were graded at something like G8). So does 70 1967 pennies constitute a skewing of numbers? They have graded 60 1930 pennies and rejected 9. Graded 64 1902 pennies (there are four types) and rejected 7. Have a look at the CGS site - even if you have no interest in slabbing yourself, the information made available is actually fascinating and very comprehensive (it costs nothing at the moment to register).

[Peckris 579]

Apart from a muppet why slab anything under say £500.If you don't know what you are buying DON'T BUY IT.

I agree with your second sentence Peter. Caveat emptor as they say. And let the emptor do the necessary research if serious money is to be spent. Would anyone buy a house without doing a survey or the necessary searches?

I hope you don't mind me saying, but the first sentence is a bit absurd. I've never spent £500 on a single coin in my life, yet I have a couple of dozen that would be well worth slabbing if I was so inclined (which to date, I'm not). For less than £500 you could pick up EF examples of most non-rare halfcrowns of the first half of the 19th Century, even some of the commoner early milled dates; you could get a very high grade cartwheel; much UNC George III, Victoria, and later; not to mention a near UNC 1930 halfcrown or 1918KN penny. I'd say - pulling a figure off the top of my head - that a coin ought to be worth more than £50 to merit slabbing, and even at that lower end, it should have something about it, e.g. a gem BU 1902 penny, or an AUNC 1952 sixpence, or EF 1949 threepence.

[Nick 329]

If anyone who has a CGS graded coin in CGS capsule has a problem with the coin their guarantee kicks in. I believe the main US Graders offer a similar guarantee. Contact them first about the problem and arrange to send the coin to them (so they can expect it). Send by insured signed for postage with a note explaining your concerns. In a best case they will 100% agree with you and refund either the value or where you paid more (and can show you did) than the valuation, they will refund you that cost. In a median case they will work with you to arrive at an agreement which may include replacing the coin with a comparable one to that you thought you had. In a worst case you come to a compromise and will probably be unhappy (which is not in any coin graders interest).

Hi Bill, I'll ask the question again. Where are the terms and conditions for this guarentee defined? The T+C's attached to the coin submission form make no mention of any guarentee for slabbed coins with problems.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Nick

[Colin88 54]

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your view, however, you are not alone in owning (or having owned) a successful global company or having a highvalue coin collection....clearly we have different views on how we run our businesses....but obviously they both seem to have worked out ok.

I am also now too old and too fat to give anyone in business a second chance, particularly in the present economic climate, who gives the impression that they don't want my money or my custom.

All the best

Colin

[Bill Pugsley 0]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

But how many Churchill Crowns, E2 & G6 farthings, to name but a few, could be added to the peanuts list?

With Bill's couple of thousand coins, and the E2 pre and post decimal coinage, plus my 10 slabs and VS's mint-flavoured NEF '35 Crown...what was that population report again?

Anyway, where's MY '67 penny, then?

CGS better grade some more 1967 pennies then if they are going to give them away to all registered collectors with CGS graded coins on the web site (of which there are currently 183). I have heard that over 500 people have registered to the site who have not logged or admitted to having CGS graded coins. Interestingly only 10,632 of the CGS coins have been registered as being 'owned' by the 183 collectors. I wonder where the other 15,000 are?

The only time I have known CGS 'give' coins away in slabs was at a Dublin Coin fair when they had encapsulated (but not graded nor added to the 'population' report) Irish Commemorative two euro coins in conjunction with the organisers. These were handed out when people bought tickets to attend the event.

I have tried to answer this point elsewhere in this forum but you do make a good point about 'how much dross (my word, peanuts your word)' is included in the 25,000 coins graded. I have no interest in decimal UK coins nor do I collect anything before 1816 - yet these appear on the CGS site. Should I reject the service because it contains stuff I am not interested in?

I have submitted everything from 'common or garden' through to extremely rare coins to CGS because I want my collection to be housed in CGS slabs and have been independently graded by them. So was it worth my submitting my Elizabeth II sixpences - certainly not in terms of financial reward. However, many were not UNC (although I thought they were) so I have been able to replace them with CGS UNC coins from private purchases. Unless a coin is scarce or rare I would prefer an UNC version of it - and many I bought as 'raw' and described as uncirculated from UK dealers and auction houses have been graded by CGS as EF, AU and in some cases as VF (with a number being rejected by CGS because of faults or cleaning).

Many collectors are content with 'raw' coins. I and some other collectors are not. Most collectors like to acquire the best they can of a specific coin, whatever their interest. To ensure I know what my coins grade at I use CGS and I buy CGS graded coins that allow me to upgrade lesser graded ones. When I paid a ridiculous amount for a CGS UNC82 Churchill Crown it was to replace an UNC80 that I already had. I am more than happy with that purchase - in the same way I would be delighted to be offered a 1967 penny graded by CGS at UNC90 or higher to replace the UNC80 grade I have.

However you wish to hold your collection - I wish you well. What I hope I have done is bring some balance to the CGS discussion.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

If anyone who has a CGS graded coin in CGS capsule has a problem with the coin their guarantee kicks in. I believe the main US Graders offer a similar guarantee. Contact them first about the problem and arrange to send the coin to them (so they can expect it). Send by insured signed for postage with a note explaining your concerns. In a best case they will 100% agree with you and refund either the value or where you paid more (and can show you did) than the valuation, they will refund you that cost. In a median case they will work with you to arrive at an agreement which may include replacing the coin with a comparable one to that you thought you had. In a worst case you come to a compromise and will probably be unhappy (which is not in any coin graders interest).

Hi Bill, I'll ask the question again. Where are the terms and conditions for this guarentee defined? The T+C's attached to the coin submission form make no mention of any guarentee for slabbed coins with problems.

Very reasonable question - unless it is in writing from CGS - under English and Welsh law it has no effect. I will find out where it is and if not on the site I will ask that it be put on the site.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your view, however, you are not alone in owning (or having owned) a successful global company or having a highvalue coin collection....clearly we have different views on how we run our businesses....but obviously they both seem to have worked out ok.

I am also now too old and too fat to give anyone in business a second chance, particularly in the present economic climate, who gives the impression that they don't want my money or my custom.

All the best

Colin

Hi Colin,

I am too old and too fat myself. Perhaps it was because I was given chances by others when running my own (and other peoples) businesses that I try and do the same for others, even in rough economic times. If we were all the same the world would be a dull place.

As to the value of a coin collection - therein lies one of the reasons I use CGS. I believe my collection has a value but I also believed that the combined collection of my father's stamps and my own stamp collection (accumulated in a total of 120 years) were worth a considerable sum. I know what we spent on stamps while we collected them and having spent over £10,000 with one dealer in the 1980's I approached that same dealer to offer them the stamps. Now I am not naive enough to think I would get anywhere near catalogue value but when I was offered just over £6,400 I was flabbergasted! That set me thinking about coins and how they were valued......

All the best

Bill

[argentumandcoins 70]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

But how many Churchill Crowns, E2 & G6 farthings, to name but a few, could be added to the peanuts list?

With Bill's couple of thousand coins, and the E2 pre and post decimal coinage, plus my 10 slabs and VS's mint-flavoured NEF '35 Crown...what was that population report again?

Anyway, where's MY '67 penny, then?

CGS better grade some more 1967 pennies then if they are going to give them away to all registered collectors with CGS graded coins on the web site (of which there are currently 183). I have heard that over 500 people have registered to the site who have not logged or admitted to having CGS graded coins. Interestingly only 10,632 of the CGS coins have been registered as being 'owned' by the 183 collectors. I wonder where the other 15,000 are?

The only time I have known CGS 'give' coins away in slabs was at a Dublin Coin fair when they had encapsulated (but not graded nor added to the 'population' report) Irish Commemorative two euro coins in conjunction with the organisers. These were handed out when people bought tickets to attend the event.

I have tried to answer this point elsewhere in this forum but you do make a good point about 'how much dross (my word, peanuts your word)' is included in the 25,000 coins graded. I have no interest in decimal UK coins nor do I collect anything before 1816 - yet these appear on the CGS site. Should I reject the service because it contains stuff I am not interested in?

I have submitted everything from 'common or garden' through to extremely rare coins to CGS because I want my collection to be housed in CGS slabs and have been independently graded by them. So was it worth my submitting my Elizabeth II sixpences - certainly not in terms of financial reward. However, many were not UNC (although I thought they were) so I have been able to replace them with CGS UNC coins from private purchases. Unless a coin is scarce or rare I would prefer an UNC version of it - and many I bought as 'raw' and described as uncirculated from UK dealers and auction houses have been graded by CGS as EF, AU and in some cases as VF (with a number being rejected by CGS because of faults or cleaning).

Many collectors are content with 'raw' coins. I and some other collectors are not. Most collectors like to acquire the best they can of a specific coin, whatever their interest. To ensure I know what my coins grade at I use CGS and I buy CGS graded coins that allow me to upgrade lesser graded ones. When I paid a ridiculous amount for a CGS UNC82 Churchill Crown it was to replace an UNC80 that I already had. I am more than happy with that purchase - in the same way I would be delighted to be offered a 1967 penny graded by CGS at UNC90 or higher to replace the UNC80 grade I have.

However you wish to hold your collection - I wish you well. What I hope I have done is bring some balance to the CGS discussion.

Whilst I am not noted for overgrading I feel I must make a valid point on behalf of all of the groups you mention here Bill.

It is VERY easy for CGS to be uber-critical of submitted coins when they grade them as they are getting £11.99/shot regardless of whether it is an UNC 99 or a Poor or Good 5. The resultant label score does not matter a jot to them as they profit or lose no further.

In relation to an earlier couple of posts by you on here;

1) If CGS staff work with LC why is the grading so far out on some LC auction items (overgraded that is)? Also why so many mis-identification issues on varieties (I know having had 2 extremely rare 1d's that were totally incorrectly identifed)?

2) Who owns the other 49% that is not held by LC holdings?

[argentumandcoins 70]

Hi Bill,

I appreciate your view, however, you are not alone in owning (or having owned) a successful global company or having a highvalue coin collection....clearly we have different views on how we run our businesses....but obviously they both seem to have worked out ok.

I am also now too old and too fat to give anyone in business a second chance, particularly in the present economic climate, who gives the impression that they don't want my money or my custom.

All the best

Colin

Hi Colin,

I am too old and too fat myself. Perhaps it was because I was given chances by others when running my own (and other peoples) businesses that I try and do the same for others, even in rough economic times. If we were all the same the world would be a dull place.

As to the value of a coin collection - therein lies one of the reasons I use CGS. I believe my collection has a value but I also believed that the combined collection of my father's stamps and my own stamp collection (accumulated in a total of 120 years) were worth a considerable sum. I know what we spent on stamps while we collected them and having spent over £10,000 with one dealer in the 1980's I approached that same dealer to offer them the stamps. Now I am not naive enough to think I would get anywhere near catalogue value but when I was offered just over £6,400 I was flabbergasted! That set me thinking about coins and how they were valued......

All the best

Bill

I think your main problem there Bill is that stamps are a rapidly depreciating market at the moment and if coins were to go the same way no collections (slabbed or raw) would be worth anywhere near what they are now?

[VickySilver 830]

Hang in there Bill, as you will hopefully forgive us for the "perhaps he doth protest overly?" responses. I think they (CGS) seem alright but feel the jury out. I have not seen many examples save for examining the LCA site as auctions are posted. I do agree that many on the site appear overgraded. Also, I went to the NYINC about 3 years ago and looked at their display - where coins were for sale - and had to decline on the 1875 farthing on sale as there was the unfortunate "H" also on the coin that had not been mentioned.

For sale? I just think the appearance was not so good, not to mention the misattribution of a featured coin.

Slab number on the 1935 crown is: 5854 - CR.G5.1935.03

I might add that in addition to overgraded the coin appears dipped with the less than fortunate verdigris.

I can assure you I have no interest in opening a slab and damaging a coin and replacing it.

[Peckris 579]

I have submitted everything from 'common or garden' through to extremely rare coins to CGS because I want my collection to be housed in CGS slabs and have been independently graded by them. So was it worth my submitting my Elizabeth II sixpences - certainly not in terms of financial reward. However, many were not UNC (although I thought they were) so I have been able to replace them with CGS UNC coins from private purchases. Unless a coin is scarce or rare I would prefer an UNC version of it - and many I bought as 'raw' and described as uncirculated from UK dealers and auction houses have been graded by CGS as EF, AU and in some cases as VF (with a number being rejected by CGS because of faults or cleaning).

Many collectors are content with 'raw' coins. I and some other collectors are not. Most collectors like to acquire the best they can of a specific coin, whatever their interest. To ensure I know what my coins grade at I use CGS and I buy CGS graded coins that allow me to upgrade lesser graded ones. When I paid a ridiculous amount for a CGS UNC82 Churchill Crown it was to replace an UNC80 that I already had. I am more than happy with that purchase - in the same way I would be delighted to be offered a 1967 penny graded by CGS at UNC90 or higher to replace the UNC80 grade I have.

This is where your philosophy and mine appear to be situated on different planets Bill. As a schoolboy collector and regular reader of Coin Monthly in the late 60s, the ONLY way I would now want to own 'common or garden' Eliz II coins is if I picked them up for peanuts. You quote Stephen Lockett, but at the Midlands Fair in the late 90s, I bought a box of more or less BU 60s coins off him (purely for my mail order stock), and I remember well what he said. "It's really common stuff, you might find it hard to shift but go on then - I'll charge you two-and-a-half times face, which is a standard markup for this kind of stuff. Good luck with selling it." If his attitudes have changed because of CGS then it's simply a commercial volte-face. There's no way you are going to persuade me that Stephen genuinely believes that there is a serious market for 60s coins. Yes, he may not remember what he said to me, and yes, he has a strong interest in promoting CGS wares, but deep down he's a realistic dealer and knows the market very well.

I don't quarrel with your desire to own the very best of what you collect, but I'm puzzled why you think that means CGS for really really common items like 60s coins? To slab and store a BU 1967 florin or penny, 1966 halfcrown or shilling, 1959 sixpence, 1964 3d or halfpenny, 1965 Churchill crown, and pay £11.99 for the privilege of owning each .. well, I just don't understand. I have several examples of all those and they are stored inside a screw top tin with a piece of lint.

Well, each to their own. You enjoy your slabs, and I'll enjoy my mahogany cabinets. One thing I do applaud CGS for though - given the rabid overgrading that eBay has been party to, it's good to know that one organisation is erring in the opposite direction.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

I would assume some may be sample pieces slabbed by CGS to distribute to potential clients?

But how many Churchill Crowns, E2 & G6 farthings, to name but a few, could be added to the peanuts list?

With Bill's couple of thousand coins, and the E2 pre and post decimal coinage, plus my 10 slabs and VS's mint-flavoured NEF '35 Crown...what was that population report again?

Anyway, where's MY '67 penny, then?

CGS better grade some more 1967 pennies then if they are going to give them away to all registered collectors with CGS graded coins on the web site (of which there are currently 183). I have heard that over 500 people have registered to the site who have not logged or admitted to having CGS graded coins. Interestingly only 10,632 of the CGS coins have been registered as being 'owned' by the 183 collectors. I wonder where the other 15,000 are?

The only time I have known CGS 'give' coins away in slabs was at a Dublin Coin fair when they had encapsulated (but not graded nor added to the 'population' report) Irish Commemorative two euro coins in conjunction with the organisers. These were handed out when people bought tickets to attend the event.

I have tried to answer this point elsewhere in this forum but you do make a good point about 'how much dross (my word, peanuts your word)' is included in the 25,000 coins graded. I have no interest in decimal UK coins nor do I collect anything before 1816 - yet these appear on the CGS site. Should I reject the service because it contains stuff I am not interested in?

I have submitted everything from 'common or garden' through to extremely rare coins to CGS because I want my collection to be housed in CGS slabs and have been independently graded by them. So was it worth my submitting my Elizabeth II sixpences - certainly not in terms of financial reward. However, many were not UNC (although I thought they were) so I have been able to replace them with CGS UNC coins from private purchases. Unless a coin is scarce or rare I would prefer an UNC version of it - and many I bought as 'raw' and described as uncirculated from UK dealers and auction houses have been graded by CGS as EF, AU and in some cases as VF (with a number being rejected by CGS because of faults or cleaning).

Many collectors are content with 'raw' coins. I and some other collectors are not. Most collectors like to acquire the best they can of a specific coin, whatever their interest. To ensure I know what my coins grade at I use CGS and I buy CGS graded coins that allow me to upgrade lesser graded ones. When I paid a ridiculous amount for a CGS UNC82 Churchill Crown it was to replace an UNC80 that I already had. I am more than happy with that purchase - in the same way I would be delighted to be offered a 1967 penny graded by CGS at UNC90 or higher to replace the UNC80 grade I have.

However you wish to hold your collection - I wish you well. What I hope I have done is bring some balance to the CGS discussion.

Whilst I am not noted for overgrading I feel I must make a valid point on behalf of all of the groups you mention here Bill.

It is VERY easy for CGS to be uber-critical of submitted coins when they grade them as they are getting £11.99/shot regardless of whether it is an UNC 99 or a Poor or Good 5. The resultant label score does not matter a jot to them as they profit or lose no further.

In relation to an earlier couple of posts by you on here;

1) If CGS staff work with LC why is the grading so far out on some LC auction items (overgraded that is)? Also why so many mis-identification issues on varieties (I know having had 2 extremely rare 1d's that were totally incorrectly identifed)?

2) Who owns the other 49% that is not held by LC holdings?

(I could hate computers - I almost finished typing a response and lost the lot. I will try again.)

I will try and deal with the points you reasonably make:

0. In simple terms you are right. Why should CGS bother about grading when they get paid at least £11.99 a coin? Should they care about the result given they have our money? It comes down to quality and expectations I suppose. If CGS delivered a poor product then it would not be supported by people like me (I can spend my money on subjectively graded coins and hope when I come to sell them the buyer will agree to the grades). There is no guarantee that having my coins graded will mean I will realise the value suggested by CGS for each coin. I have confidence (perhaps misplaced) that I will get at least 50% of the suggested value by CGS - which when I mentioned at a CGS Forum meeting one delegate offered 60% and was 'outbid' by another who offered 70%. Maybe it was light hearted, maybe it was serious. I would be surprised if it included the 'peanuts' referred to elsewhere but who knows, there may be someone like me who wants to have all sixpences since 1816 in the best possible grade;

1. I had the same complaint after I bought coins at a London Coin Auction that I submitted for grading to CGS. They did not come back the same grade as I was led to expect from the auction catalogue AND my review of the coins prior to the auction. So I asked Steve Lockett why that was the case. The answer is very simple - when assessing coins for an auction, unless the coin is a high rarity or otherwise very valuable minimal time will be spent by the auctioneer examining the piece in great detail. Otherwise to do so with every coin would take a disproportionate amount of time. The paid for CGS process can easily take ten minutes per coin per grader (and there are always two graders). It follows a set procedure and arrives at a grade based upon scientific criteria (arrange to visit and see the process if you like) and that takes time. I mentioned that I had reviewed the coins before I bought them as well. I attended the Dublin Coin Fair and looked at a number of coins I considered buying from a number of different dealers and ended up selecting five that I thought were worth buying. I was happy until I got home to my desk with my lenses and decent bright light and then using a more scientific approach concluded I had bought a VF, an EF and if I was really lucky three that might grade as CGS AU75. None of the five would grade at UNC by CGS rules, yet my fairly detailed inspection at the Fair (I took time) was simply not adequate;

1a. This is a worry that I have had in the past. Now I regularly check the status of any submissions to CGS (on the web site) and as soon as coins are attributed I compare them against my own submission documents. If I disagree with the variety attributed to a coin I immediately raise the matter with CGS by email. Once, in the past, I have returned a coin in a capsule and asked for them to be reassessed for variety. Now out of over 2,000 coins I believe the maximum number this has happened on is about 15 coins (less than 1% - but needs to be improved). On the plus side over 30 coins I have submitted have been identified as new varieties (that I may not have been aware of) or scarcer varieties than I thought they were. Ideally no one should find the variety being incorrectly attributed and it is an area that CGS recognise they need to improve;

2. I have met two people (both dealers) who have told me they have shares in CGS. I believe there is at least one private investor but other than that I have no idea who owns the other 49%. Before anyone asks it is not me - I have no shares in 'coins or related businesses' - I just buy and occasionally sell duplicate coins.

[Bill Pugsley 0]

Bill, I have presented the above example of a "Rocking Horse Crown" that clearly looks to be overgraded by numerous points and has obviously developed a worrisome verdigris spot WITHIN the slab.

So that is two severe strikes in my book against them.

Another issue I do not think worked out to the satisfaction of many of us is the seemingly too intimate relationship with London Coins - I can not see how this is an issue that they sell coins at commission at auction that have been graded at their site, and that this is an ethical compromise at best.

I agree with many of your other points, though have no experience submitting coins through them so can not speak as to Customer Relations, charges, rapidity of service, etc.

I think this is a major issue. If people are relying on their grading then they need to be independent and seen to be independent of both buyers and sellers.

As the Americans might say ... it is Ethics 101.

I have my high grade coins slabbed by CGS mainly for protection and ease of viewing. I do find their grading generally strict but I think that's probably a good thing. I too find their intimate relationship with London Coins of some concern. As stated on their website, London Coins (Holdings) Group Ltd owns 51% of CGS. I don't have a real problem with that or the fact that London Coins auctions CGS coins on behalf of clients. However, I just think that the selling of CGS slabs on the London coins website (and the auctioning of these slabs when they fail to sell) raise questions of on the independency of CGS.

The problem here is not whether CGS act ethically or not - and I have no doubt that they are entirely ethical and above board. It is the perception that matters. While there is a link to a major vendor - in this case London Coins - there will always be a suspicion that they grade higher to get better prices and therefore higher commissions or profits.

And it only takes a couple of unhappy customers to start that ball rolling.

I have an open mind at the moment, and waiting on my first consignment to be graded and slabbed (hopefully) and returned, a trial run if you will. One of the questions in my 'open mind' at the moment is how on earth there are so many coins worth less than, say £25, that have been slabbed by CGS when it costs a minimum of £11.99 plus 2-way postage (or petrol!) for each coin? Lots of optimists or some preferential discounts?? Any thoughts? I am not saying £11.99 isn't good value, but how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40?

Even Bill says he pays the going rate .. I spoke with Andrew of AJW Coins and he says he pays the going rate too, but was offered "25 for the price of 20" at some point.

When CGS assess a value for a coin they use a variety of factors which includes an extensive database of sales made by auction houses and on eBay (at the last CGS Forum a presentation was done by Steve Lockett on this very subject). What is not included in the valuation is the cost of the grading - in the same way when you buy a coin you do not expect be charged for the envelope it comes in.

Because I collect numerous series that include the low value/high volume coins, I arrange to get them graded even if the coin is worth less than £11.99 so I have them in a consistent storage mechanism. Lighthouse do a 'use at home' coin slab (EVERSLAB) that I bought some of to see what they were like. They cost about £6.50 for five slabs (but you have to designate internal size to 'fit' the coin and you cannot mix and match the five inserts). They are not the same dimension as CGS slabs and as the name suggests, you have to break them open to get the coin out (but they are not hermetically sealed).

I am trying to respond to matters raised as I come across them. If you feel I have not addressed a point raised I may think I have done so at another point in this now very wide thread.....

[Bill Pugsley 0]

how can it be economically viable for coins worth less than even £40?

The slab plastic costs pennies! Even at non-commercial rates, you can buy the plastic shells for around 50p (I think it was something like that, I do remember it being insignificant when I looked) from the US (made me consider encapsulating my own coins, if the main argument is 'protection').

Without the post, £11 fee, or petrol costs involved, it wouldn't be a such bad day-job, sticking a £2 coin in a slab and calling it AU/UNC etc, and then firing it out to the masses at £20+ a throw.

In my view it's only economically viable for one source! I've never heard of any collector submitting a 1967 1d for encapsulation, but I bet they're out there! I bet someone somewhere once had a mint roll of them, and just sat up all night with a tube of glue and a cup of coffee, just before a holiday in Mauritius?

I believe that when you buy in sufficient bulk that the Perspex holder does cost a few pence. The same is true of the plastic inserts. I have noted elsewhere that the going rate for Everslab is about £6.50 for five (so £1.30 each). Factor in the need to go through the grading process and even a £2.00 coin would require the attention of two graders. Then the coin has to be fitted to the capsule and pressed by the bulky device that was I presume high capital cost (there is no glue!). All in all I agree that getting common or garden £2.00 coins graded seems like a waste of time - but then again I do not collect £2.00 current coins. If I were a collector of these coins I might want to get the finest graded of a specific two pound....

I have submitted 1967 pennies for grading in the hope that they were all high CGS grades - which they were not. Certainly not the UNC 90 I was looking for.

Horses for courses - just do not forget that 'peanuts' or dross (as I would describe some coins) are what some people like to collect!

[Rob 3,152]

CGS better grade some more 1967 pennies then if they are going to give them away to all registered collectors with CGS graded coins on the web site (of which there are currently 183). I have heard that over 500 people have registered to the site who have not logged or admitted to having CGS graded coins. Interestingly only 10,632 of the CGS coins have been registered as being 'owned' by the 183 collectors. I wonder where the other 15,000 are?

I will own up to having had about a dozen of them, all contents are now sitting nicely in my mahogany cabinet.